Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Scott Brown Will Debate Elizabeth Warren if MSNBC Isn't Involved

Posted by on Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown has been running away from the prospect of debating Elizabeth Warren for a while now. But he's finally agreed to a debate, with one little condition:

Sen. Scott Brown announced today that he will accept an invitation to debate Elizabeth Warren at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in Boston, but only on two conditions — one of which is that MSNBC, which is scheduled to host the debate, must drop out as a sponsor.

In a letter to the Kennedy Institute, campaign manager Jim Barnett wrote that while it was OK with the moderator, NBC's Tom Brokaw, it could not accept a network "with a reputation for political advocacy."

On the one hand, the mind reels with Fox News punchlines on reading that last line about political advocacy. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder: What would happen if Democrats started doing this with Fox News? Should they start refusing to take part in Fox News-sponsored debates?

 

Comments (12) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
What's with politicians who only want to run for president of their own fan club?
Posted by YoungBS on June 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM · Report this
Chris Govella 2
looks like Scott Brown is more of a coward than we thought
Posted by Chris Govella http://blog.chrisgovella.net on June 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM · Report this
3
Really 56 votes for not a tool of the left? Have you seen their primetime? Sharpton, Shultz, Maddow, O'Donnell
Posted by Seattle14 on June 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM · Report this
4
If objective truth is an impossible goal, then it's probably best to have MSNBC and Fox News battling it out. I'm not a media expert, and I considered myself a conservative before GWB got elected, but even I can see what a debauched and propagandistic entity Fox News is. In my view, MSNBC is a polemic, but doesn't go to the extreme that Fox News does. I would prefer Fox News didn't exist, but at least they aren't allowed to operate unchecked.
Posted by Space_Magic_5 on June 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM · Report this
long-time reader 5
I thought it was a snake, not a scorpion.
Posted by long-time reader on June 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM · Report this
Farbe 6
Talk about a "weak-kneed, pansy-assed, hand-wringer" I think Brown qualifies.
Posted by Farbe on June 19, 2012 at 1:03 PM · Report this
7
Um, if you don't feel comfortable arguing your case in front of people who are probably going to disagree with you, you shouldn't seek a position of public power. Maybe try to lead a self-selected group, so you can be sure everyone's there because they like you? A book club maybe.

tl;dr 1 and 2 have got it. @5, I've always heard the scorpion version.
Posted by Nitidiuscula on June 19, 2012 at 1:06 PM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 8
So Maddow, Schultz, Sharpton, are not left enough? It appears that at least 1/2 of you feel that way.
Posted by Gay Dude for Romney http://mittromney.com on June 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM · Report this
9
@7 All Brown is asking for is a neutral referee. He ruled out the far left MSNBC, but didn't insist on Fox News.

It's not like _any_ of the news media is going to bring up Warren's fake Indian scandal or the plagiarism scandal.

Typical Warren question: what's cuter, puppies or kittens?
Typical Brown question: have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Posted by delbert on June 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 10
@4: I'm sure it's quite sad, from your viewpoint, that you feel the need to protect your convictions and political dispositions by preferring that Fox news did not exist – and so, as I would suspect, prevent them further than poisoning the ear of the masses? I suppose that's the result of your stances being on shaky ground, for they must be, but for what other reason would you want a media outlet removed from the marketplace of ideas?
Posted by Gay Dude for Romney http://mittromney.com on June 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 11
@10 - Because that entire purpose of that "marketplace" is not to promote good ideas, but to serve up slop like: "Obama deserves great credit for repealing DADT, but he (like [Rmoney]) will never sanction same sex marriage."
Posted by Pridge Wessea on June 19, 2012 at 7:18 PM · Report this
12
@10, as I tried to indicate at the beginning of my post, if objective truth were possible, IMHO there would be no need for a 'marketplace of ideas'. There would only be true and false. I was, in fact, arguing for a plurality of ideas in the 'market' as the second best option. I am gratified that we seem to agree on this point. Fox News has had a monopoly on (radical) ideas for far too long.
Posted by Space_Magic_5 on June 19, 2012 at 7:30 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy